A great deal of what is said is without question antisemetic and I have no problem agreeing with that.

One thing which shoots off the pages at me is not equating Jews with Israel. I never do that but that is what I see done again and again and again by Pro Israeli's themselves.

But to the nitty gritty. Prejudice and racist/religious hate is always to be opposed but a distinction must be made between what is indeed antisemetism and what is criticism of Israel

Let's look at what UK academics have supposedly done which is so wrong. First, this is a 'working definition', no more. Academics can make their choice on what they think of any 'working definition'

Always in draft, never formally adopted, it is not up for discussion by those who could change it. Yet it is increasingly presented today as the definition of antisemitism. It cannot bear this weight. It is being used, rather, in ideological battles on campuses to demonise robust criticism of Israel. This conflation, as the UCU motion suggests &#8220;confuses criticism of Israeli government policy and actions with genuine antisemitism&#8221; and makes the task of identifying genuine antisemitism and fighting it harder, not easier.

-snip &#8220;In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.&#8221; This single sentence has dominated the way the &#8220;working definition&#8221; is read.

The use of &#8220;could&#8221;, here and later in the document, is loaded. Following six relatively unproblematic examples of antisemitism, the document again focuses on Israel and lists five ways in which antisemitism &#8220;could&#8217; be manifested, which are both confused and tendentious. The text says that &#8220;the overall context&#8221; should be taken into account. Yet, regardless of context, one of the examples &#8211; &#8220;using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism&#8221; &#8211; could hardly be anything but antisemitic. The other four examples, grouped around this one, are clearly tainted by association, the suggestion being that they could be anti-semitic, &#8220;just like the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism&#8221;.
In reality they can and often have been contested on grounds that have nothing to do with antisemitism.
Take, for instance, the example of &#8220;Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination&#8221;. This could be antisemitic. Equally, denying that same right to Basques, Catalans, Scots or indeed the Zulu or Afrikaner nations/peoples, could be racist. But there are all kinds of non-racist reasons why someone might not support these national causes. The right to national self-determination is after all not the primordial right.
-snip-

Someone at the EUMC saved the organisation from considerable embarrassment by insisting that qualifications be inserted, changing the word &#8220;are&#8221; to &#8220;could, taking into account the overall context&#8221; be antisemitic. In other words for Kenneth Stern and his colleagues the link between criticism of Israel and antisemitism is much closer than in the final document, highlighting the original presumption that criticism of Israel on certain topics, no matter how carefully reasoned, was likely to be antisemitic by definition; and to put the onus on critics of Israel to prove their innocence on this matter.

In short: the EUMC working definition has little to do with fighting antisemitism and a lot to do with waging a propaganda war against critics of Israel. It is time it was buried and the UCU decision to take it on is hopefully a step in that direction. The fight against antisemitism should not be muddied by those who confuse criticism of Israeli violations of human rights and international law with hatred of Jews. It is clearly no such thing.

They want freedom of speech and not to accept a definition of antisemitism which limits academic thought and can be seen as an attempt to shield the State of Israel from criticism.

Click to expand...

They have freedom of speech and want a freedom of diarrhetic bullshitting too. One can't be an enlightened professor without being a jackass, of course.

Click to expand...

Freedom of thought is probably the most important freedom we have. Without that freedom we give up all the struggles of the last three hundred years.

I taught anti racism in college in the 1980's and you do not need to be a professor to understand that there is a big difference between that and attempts at censorship of criticism of a countries policies. Looks like the UK is doing the right thing.

The article also correctly states that this confusion between antisemitism and criticism of Israel being labelled as antisemitism has made it much harder to deal with genuine antisemitism which I hope you would agree is something which needs to be done.

However regarding claims of Islamophobia. Yes, I can see that there is a correlation between people calling people Islamophobe when this is done due to criticism of a Muslims country and this new concept that criticism of Israel is antisemetic and would bring you back to article above where it correctly says criticism of Israel 'could' be antisemetic. The problem is that this has been grossly exaggerated and has resulted in an expectation that criticism of Israel is antisemetic. In the US I understand this has resulted in a sort of secret police on campus's and without question an interference in intellectual thought.

I cannot see how anyone with any kind of objectivity cannot see that this has resulted in a sort of 'thought police'. The BBC for instance being terrified of the phone call every time it reports anything on Israel. This is a stealth interference in freedom of thought and speech created under the guise of 'new antisemetism' and is not acceptable.

And of course you also see this with Islamophobia. On forums I see again and again people beginning by blaming Muslims and then giving an instance where a country is acting badly to justify their attack on Muslims. The primary attack more often than not is on Muslims, the issue is secondary. Where that happens it is usually Islamophobia. Where the issue looked at is what is happening in the country or the actions, stance, theory effect of such as the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other extremist groups it is not.

Likewise if people cite their criticisms of Israel as being against the Jews or call what is happening as The Jews, rather than Israel or the Israel Government rather than dealing with the issue then it indicates antisemitism. Ironically the people most likely to do this are pro Israeli Americans, not critics of Israel. In my experience they also are the ones which are the most Islamophobic.

Simply reporting on what is happening is doing exactly that and people have their right to their views. To try and stop universities from such discussion is an attempt at censorship. UK academics have done right to turn their back on such censorship and to point out that that is indeed what it is.

However regarding claims of Islamophobia. Yes, I can see that there is a correlation between people calling people Islamophobe when this is done due to criticism of a Muslims country and this new concept that criticism of Israel is antisemetic and would bring you back to article above where it correctly says criticism of Israel 'could' be antisemetic. The problem is that this has been grossly exaggerated and has resulted in an expectation that criticism of Israel is antisemetic. In the US I understand this has resulted in a sort of secret police on campus's and without question an interference in intellectual thought. I cannot see how anyone with any kind of objectivity cannot see that this has resulted in a sort of 'thought police'. The BBC for instance being terrified of the phone call every time it reports anything on Israel. This is a stealth interference in freedom of thought and speech created under the guise of 'new antisemetism' and is not acceptable.
And of course you also see this with Islamophobia. On forums I see again and again people beginning by blaming Muslims and then giving an instance where a country is acting badly to justify their attack on Muslims. The primary attack more often than not is on Muslims, the issue is secondary. Where that happens it is usually Islamophobia. Where the issue looked at is what is happening in the country or the actions, stance, theory effect of such as the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other extremist groups it is not.
Likewise if people cite their criticisms of Israel as being against the Jews or call what is happening as The Jews, rather than Israel or the Israel Government rather than dealing with the issue then it indicates antisemitism. Ironically the people most likely to do this are pro Israeli Americans, not critics of Israel. In my experience they also are the ones which are the most Islamophobic.
Simply reporting on what is happening is doing exactly that and people have their right to their views. To try and stop universities from such discussion is an attempt at censorship. UK academics have done right to turn their back on such censorship and to point out that that is indeed what it is.

So, what struggles did we struggle in the ME, armed with the freedom of thought, for the last 300 years?Impressive, like women's studies, of course.Like claims of islamofobia, of course.They may start an adopt-a-palistani campaign too.

Click to expand...

As usual most of what you say is just gibberish.

Click to expand...

Why do I always have to deal with comprehension problems of my faithful readers?

However regarding claims of Islamophobia. Yes, I can see that there is a correlation between people calling people Islamophobe when this is done due to criticism of a Muslims country and this new concept that criticism of Israel is antisemetic and would bring you back to article above where it correctly says criticism of Israel 'could' be antisemetic. The problem is that this has been grossly exaggerated and has resulted in an expectation that criticism of Israel is antisemetic. In the US I understand this has resulted in a sort of secret police on campus's and without question an interference in intellectual thought. I cannot see how anyone with any kind of objectivity cannot see that this has resulted in a sort of 'thought police'. The BBC for instance being terrified of the phone call every time it reports anything on Israel. This is a stealth interference in freedom of thought and speech created under the guise of 'new antisemetism' and is not acceptable.
And of course you also see this with Islamophobia. On forums I see again and again people beginning by blaming Muslims and then giving an instance where a country is acting badly to justify their attack on Muslims. The primary attack more often than not is on Muslims, the issue is secondary. Where that happens it is usually Islamophobia. Where the issue looked at is what is happening in the country or the actions, stance, theory effect of such as the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other extremist groups it is not.
Likewise if people cite their criticisms of Israel as being against the Jews or call what is happening as The Jews, rather than Israel or the Israel Government rather than dealing with the issue then it indicates antisemitism. Ironically the people most likely to do this are pro Israeli Americans, not critics of Israel. In my experience they also are the ones which are the most Islamophobic.
Simply reporting on what is happening is doing exactly that and people have their right to their views. To try and stop universities from such discussion is an attempt at censorship. UK academics have done right to turn their back on such censorship and to point out that that is indeed what it is.

Click to expand...

Yawn.

Click to expand...

So basically as usual no answer and simply a meaningless reply as you always need the last word even if it is meaningless. Trust me, that is what is boring....

Needless to say all hell is breaking loose and UK academics are the most foul, antisemetic people in the world!!

Click to expand...

NEED to say unfortunately- a group that size and with Leftist politics (like yours) Does NOT preclude antisemitism. (like yours)
Antisemitism is Not a Rare disease, but rather a traditional and institutional one on the EU/UK.

"..The Academic Friends of Israel (AFI) said the decision by the University College Union (UCU) to pass a resolution at its conference in Harrogate in Yorkshire on Sunday was illegal.

AFI said the union is ignoring the legal advice it received from its lawyers in 2007, which made it clear that distributing and promoting a call for a boycott of Israel is in breach of the UK&#8217;s 2010 Equality Act, and also falls outside the objectives of the union.
The act includes numerous anti-discrimination and equality legislation.

&#8220;If UCU distributes copies of the Palestinian boycott call to its members or promotes the call with Education International or its affiliates, it is effectively asking them to participate in the boycott,&#8221; AFI Director Ronnie Fraser said.

The UCU, which represents around 120,000 members, has a history of anti-Israel activity with members of the union Continually promoting controversial motions against the Jewish state.

Fraser, who attended the debate, said the rhetoric used was &#8220;totally unacceptable,&#8221; and that Israel was referred to as an &#8220;authoritarian, totalitarian and fascist&#8221; state.

&#8220;The motion also contains a relentless attack on the Jewish state and follows similar motions that have been adopted at UCU conferences over the last five years. No other state in the world has been singled out for attack in this way,&#8221; he said.

Last year the union voted to support the boycott, divestment and sanctions&#8217; campaign against Israel and sever ties with the Histadrut, Israel&#8217;s organization of trade unions, at its annual conference in Manchester. The UCU voted to urge other trade unions and bodies to follow suit. Fraser said the UCU each time puts the onus of blame on Israel, which he said can be interpreted as anti-Semitic.

&#8220;I recognize of course that many of these issues are open to debate and discussion and that legitimate criticism of Israel is acceptable. But the recitation of a long list of allegations against Israel, and Israel alone, without any recognition that Palestinians might bear any guilt or responsibility for the current impasse, or for their own crimes against Israelis, is one-sided and anti-Semitic,&#8221; he said.

Click to expand...

Nothing against Saudi Apartheidia ALL these many years?
Iran?

I mean lefties.. Gays and Adulterers stoned to Death, Practice of other religions forbidden, Apostates killed, etc, etc, etc.
But hey! only Israel rates these Jackoff condemnations from the antisemitic teabags.
Clearly THEY have an Israel/Jooo problem. (like the OP, Tinmore, and so many other transparent bigots)

Sudan? China? Burma?

The OP just posting this because she doesn't want HER same, and worse, bigoted views labeled for what they Are.
In fact, posting on this raging anti-Israel (cough) board at all because it's Home, in fact dominated by Antisemites.
(like the spammer who makes 90% of the string starts in this section)
-
-

Antisemitism is Not a Rare disease, but rather a traditional and institutional one on the EU/UK.

Click to expand...

No. That is your babble. UK's normal antisemitism is about the same as the US. Scotland's antisemitism is tiny. Indeed Scotland is the only European country never to put into place anti Jewish laws (apart from when it was forced to by English control). The US prior to WW2 was considerably more antisemetic than the UK. While we changed our immigration laws to allow extra Jews in, you changed yours to allow less Jews in. Even more the US Euginics progam was where Hitler got his ideas from so quit this bullshit.

You don't get it. The problem is not with antisemitism. No one wants antisemitism any more than they want the sort of Islamophobia you bore people with, any more than they want any kind of prejudice....but people do want the ability to discuss situations without censure. We do not want the sort of situation arriving in the UK which the US has been suffering from some time.

Your difficulty with the UK and Europe is that Governments have not been representing the populations view. This as I said before is mostly to do with knowledge. As people in Europe/UK become more aware of the situation in Israel and as Israel becomes more and more right wing and takes more and more of the Palestinians land against International law, depriving them of needed resources, the people of Europe lose sympathy with Israel. That is where your problem lies and no doubt that is the reason someone thought it would be cool to introduce a concept of new antisemitism as propaganda to reduce decent. We are free democracies. Will not work.

I can find nothing on a new academic boycott in the British press. This was a vote on not acceptting the EU's working definition on antisemitism &#8211; on the aspects which are concerned with intellectual freedom.

so to the critics of that

If Ronnie Fraser is correct and only &#8216;antisemities&#8217; would dissociate themselves from the &#8216;working definition&#8217;, this places a significant number of highly respected Jewish and non-Jewish academics working in the field of antisemitism research in the dock. And it would mean that the FRA officials, who have clearly sidelined the original EUMC document, are also antisemites. John Mann MP should thus be clamouring for these Jew-haters to be brought before the European Court of Human Rights, just as he wants the UCU to be investigated by the EHRC in the UK.

Typifying the tenor of these responses is the myth, succinctly articulated by the Board of Deputies chief executive Jon Benjamin, that it&#8217;s the UCU that is redefining antisemitism. In fact, it&#8217;s the EUMC that redefined antisemitism. What the UCU seems to have done is seek to revert back to the time when a common sense consensus about the nature of antisemitism existed.

So France has side stepped it, UK Further and Higher Education Lecturers have decided not to accept it and in September if Israel has not shown it is willing to have meaningful talks at a viable solution, the chances are that France and the UK will recognise the new Palestinian State.

Quit stalking me from forum to forum. In your incarnation as Mr Big you have been told you are on ignore. The effect to your ego was obviously severe..but enough is enough of you.

Click to expand...

Uh.. I was here THREE YEARS before you Bimbo! (March 2006)
I of course reserve the right to 'check my traps' every so often.
I won't follow you to Stormfront tho! but I do post on some Arab/Muslim/EU boards.

alexa said:

I will answer once related to the topic. (personal insults belong to your fantasies.)

Click to expand...

You Lie about this regularly.
No one believes you.
You have -0- credibility.
Like you COULD answer twice if you had too!
LOL

Antisemitism is Not a Rare disease, but rather a traditional and institutional one on the EU/UK.

Click to expand...

No. That is your babble. UK's normal antisemitism is about the same as the US. Scotland's antisemitism is tiny. Indeed Scotland is the only European country never to put into place anti Jewish laws (apart from when it was forced to by English control). The US prior to WW2 was considerably more antisemetic than the UK. While we changed our immigration laws to allow extra Jews in, you changed yours to allow less Jews in. Even more the US Euginics progam was where Hitler got his ideas from so quit this bullshit.

You don't get it. The problem is not with antisemitism. No one wants antisemitism any more than they want the sort of Islamophobia you bore people with, any more than they want any kind of prejudice....but people do want the ability to discuss situations without censure. We do not want the sort of situation arriving in the UK which the US has been suffering from some time.

Your difficulty with the UK and Europe is that Governments have not been representing the populations view. This as I said before is mostly to do with knowledge. As people in Europe/UK become more aware of the situation in Israel and as Israel becomes more and more right wing and takes more and more of the Palestinians land against International law, depriving them of needed resources, the people of Europe lose sympathy with Israel. That is where your problem lies and no doubt that is the reason someone thought it would be cool to introduce a concept of new antisemitism as propaganda to reduce decent. We are free democracies. Will not work.

I can find nothing on a new academic boycott in the British press. This was a vote on not acceptting the EU's working definition on antisemitism &#8211; on the aspects which are concerned with intellectual freedom.

so to the critics of that

If Ronnie Fraser is correct and only &#8216;antisemities&#8217; would dissociate themselves from the &#8216;working definition&#8217;, this places a significant number of highly respected Jewish and non-Jewish academics working in the field of antisemitism research in the dock. And it would mean that the FRA officials, who have clearly sidelined the original EUMC document, are also antisemites. John Mann MP should thus be clamouring for these Jew-haters to be brought before the European Court of Human Rights, just as he wants the UCU to be investigated by the EHRC in the UK.
Typifying the tenor of these responses is the myth, succinctly articulated by the Board of Deputies chief executive Jon Benjamin, that it&#8217;s the UCU that is redefining antisemitism. In fact, it&#8217;s the EUMC that redefined antisemitism. What the UCU seems to have done is seek to revert back to the time when a common sense consensus about the nature of antisemitism existed.

So France has side stepped it, UK Further and Higher Education Lecturers have decided not to accept it and in September if Israel has not shown it is willing to have meaningful talks at a viable solution, the chances are that France and the UK will recognise the new Palestinian State.
Now please respect the reality that you are on ignore.

I am off to watch the French Open final.

Click to expand...

This is incomprehensibe Babble, and no answer at alll.

But you Have YET AGAIN given TWO EXCUSES why you CANNOT reply.
Lie 1: "I'm on Ignore"
Lie 2: "You're going to watch the French Open".. AS IF that precludes future reply
How Inane!
--
Alexa-- only expert at making excuses why she won't reply next time. ("company", "bath", "ignore", "French open", etc etc etc)
-

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!